Yeah,
here and on my web log I linked to a lot of things and made fun of Mel Gibson’s movie quite a bit.But now it seems the odds are I will roast in hell for it.Mel
gets to heaven, probably, and I don’t.Why?

A scientist has calculated that there is a 67% chance that God exists.

Dr Stephen Unwin has used a 200-year-old formula to calculate the probability of the existence
of an omnipotent being.Bayes' Theory is usually used to work out the likelihood
of events, such as nuclear power failure, by balancing the various factors that could affect a situation.

The Manchester University graduate, who now works as a risk assessor in Ohio, said the theory starts
from the assumption that God has a 50/50 chance of existing, and then factors in the evidence both for and against the notion
of a higher being.

Ohio?Really?

And what does this Brit in Ohio use to work
out his assessment?

Factors that were considered included recognition
of goodness, which Dr Unwin said makes the existence of God more likely, countered by things like the existence of natural
evil - including earthquakes and cancer.

Wait a minute, Steve!“Goodness” makes the existence of God more likely?

Let’s think about that.Remember the Crusades?Remember the Inquisition?Remember the
Thirty Years War?Yeah, well, looking at it the other way, smiting the godless,
torturing people and mass slaughters may be a form of goodness to some.I suppose
that depends on your perspective.Making sure “bad folks” die in
excruciating pain has, as a very good thing, many adherents.

It seems one could argue
equally well that goodness proves that God doesn’t exist at all, or if God exists, He (or She or It) isn’t particularly
effective.This God business has indeed caused a lot of pain and suffering, and
I’m not sure pain and suffering are inherently good.

Goodness is then a slippery term.Ask Martha “It’s a good thing” Stewart.Hell,
some people (like me) think anchovies are “good.”

The assumption here
is that God is inherently good.Inherently?

I remember when first encountering Dickens or Shakespeare my English students would whine, “But that’s
boring.”And I would then patiently explain that they were bored, which
wasn’t at all the same thing as Macbeth or Great Expectations being intrinsically and inherently boring, or not.No written work was boring as such.There
was no such inherent quality.But there was one’s reaction – “This
bores me” – and that is quite valid.Of course.

I suspect this Unwin fellow is confusing reaction to something with its inherent qualities.Perhaps he should read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance where
Robert Pirsig chats about such things, bringing in the Pheadrus dialogs of Plato.

That
seems unlikely.This fellow would have us use Excel spreadsheets, not philosophy.

The unusual workings - which even take into account the existence of miracles - are set out in
his new book, which includes a spreadsheet of the data used so that anyone can make the calculation themselves should
they doubt its validity.The book, The Probability of God: A simple
calculation that proves the ultimate truth, will be published later this month.

Why am I reminded of Douglas
Adams and the question at the core of A Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy where, of course, the answer
the meaning of everything turns out to be… forty-two?

Unwin says
he’s interested in bridging the gap between science and religion.And he
argues that rather than being a theological issue, the question of God's existence is simply a matter of statistics.

"On arriving in America I was exposed to certain religious outlooks that were somewhat of an
assault upon my sensibilities - outlooks in which religion actually competes with science as an explanation of the world,"
he said.

"While I could not be sure, having slept through most of
the cathedral services I had attended during secondary school, this did not seem like the version of faith I had remembered.In many ways, this project was for me a journey home - a reconciliation of my faith
and education."

Yeah, well, Unwin, we all
have our issues.

So the probability that God exists is sixty-six percent,
and Unwin maintains that he is personally around ninety-five percent certain that God exists.Good for him.

Two in three chances God is out there.For this guy a nineteen in twenty chance.

Fine.Suppose we grant this, even without downloading the spreadsheet Unwin has devised.

Does this not then beg the question, if there is a God, probably, what is
God doing these days?What is this business with war and death and all the rest?Is God messing with us?He, or she, or
it has an odd sense of humor that only Mel Gibson understands fully?Perhaps
so.

___

Rick Brown, one of my regular
readers – the “news guy” – has a reaction.

Wait!Did you say this guy "works as a risk assessor in Ohio"?Hey,
he's in the (pardon the expression) goddam insurance business!What's he trying
to do, put some statistical bite into all those "Act of God" clauses?

But forget God, right
now.I need Dr Unwin to run the numbers on the probability of the existence of
the Tooth Fairy!My son lost another tooth today, and he just now put it under
his pillow and is not nearly ready to doze off just yet.So with me having nothing
smaller than a twenty in my wallet, not to mention really wanting to "sleep in" tomorrow morning, an actual real live Tooth
Fairy, preferably one carrying cash money in small denominations and her own supply of number-ten envelopes, would really
come in handy right now!

Five will get you ten,
though, that Dr Unwin won't give the Tooth Fairy that generous 50/50 head start he grants to God.

Not a bad strategy,
when you think about it, since without that handicap, God would come in at a pretty paltry and unimpressive 17% (that's 67%
minus 50%), which is less than one chance in five!I'd imagine this could really
piss off just about any Supreme Being, at least enough to doom Dr Unwin to an eternity of calculating actuarial tables in
Hell using a broken crayola instead of a spreadsheet program.

All things considered,
crossing your maker (assuming he exists, even if there's really only a 17% chance of it) could end up being very much worse
than dissing some whoosy Tooth Fairy, so it's probably best to play it safe.

Then again, I'd bet
if there's one thing this "risk assessor" guy is trained to do, it's how to play it safe.

Yes, one is reminded of "Pascal's Wager."
Pascal essentially argues that to believe in God is the best bet because if God exists, you'll go to heaven and avoid hell.If you don't believe in God, you might lose all this.If God does not exist, you'll have nothing to lose.So it's better to
believe in God than not to.